On July 9, 1991, the Wisconsin Professional Police Association/LEER Division
(hereinafter Association) filed a petition with the Wisconsin Employment Relations
Commission (hereinafter Commission) to clarify a bargaining unit of municipal
employes of the City of Marshfield. The Association seeks to include the position
of Sergeant in the bargaining unit represented by the Association consisting of
regular full-time Corporal, Police Officer, Detective and Police Technician ranks,
excluding the Chief, Captain, Lieutenant and Sergeant ranks. Hearing in this matter
was originally scheduled for November 11, 1991. Hearing was held on January 9,
1992, in Marshfield, Wisconsin, before James W. Engmann, a member of the
Commission's staff. The hearing was transcribed, a copy of which was received on
January 24, 1992. The parties filed or waived the filing of briefs and reply
briefs, the last of which was received on April 17, 1992. Being fully advised in
the premises, the Commission makes and issues the following

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Wisconsin Professional Police Association/LEER Division (hereinafter
Association), and its local affiliate, Marshfield Police Officer's Wage and
Grievance Committee, are labor organizations with an office located at E1125 South
Radley Road, Waupaca, Wisconsin.

2. City of Marshfield (hereinafter City or Employer) is a municipal
employer with offices located at City Hall, 630 South Central Avenue, Marshfield
Avenue, Marshfield, Wisconsin.

3. The Association is the exclusive bargaining representative for the
regular full-time Corporal, Police Officer, Detective and Police Technician ranks
within the Marshfield Police Department, excluding the Chief, Captain, Lieutenant
and Sergeant ranks within said department.

4. On July 9, 1991, the Association filed a petition with the Commission
to clarify the bargaining unit described in Finding of Fact 3 above by including the
position of Sergeant. The City opposes the inclusion of the position of Sergeant
because the parties' previously agreed to exclude the position of Sergeant from the
bargaining unit described above and because the position is supervisory.

5. In 1968, the bargaining unit included the positions of Lieutenant,
Sergeant and Patrol Officer. In the early 1970's, a dispute arose within the
bargaining unit concerning the selection of union representatives. As a result, the
Sergeants and the Lieutenants withdrew from the bargaining unit and formed their own
bargaining unit. Subsequently, the Association and the City entered into a
collective bargaining agreement which specifically excluded the positions of
Sergeant and the Lieutenant. Said exclusion was not based upon an agreement by the
Association and the City that the positions of Sergeant and Lieutenant were
supervisory, confidential, managerial or executive employes. Since then, the
Association and the City have entered into numerous collective bargaining agreements
which continue to exclude the position of Sergeant, the latest of which reads as
follows:

ARTICLE 1 - PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT

1. It is the intent and purpose of the parties hereto that this
agreement
shall promote and improve working conditions between the City of
Marshfield and the Marshfield Police Department "Corporal", "Patrol
Officers," "Detectives," and "Police Technicians," to set forth herein
rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of
employment to be observed by the parties heretofore mentioned.

. . .

ARTICLE 2 - RECOGNITION

1. This agreement made and entered into at Marshfield,
Wisconsin, pursuant
to the provisions of Chapter 111.70 and 62.13 of the Wisconsin Statutes
by and between the City of Marshfield, a municipal corporation, as
municipal employer, with the Chief of Police as its agent, hereinafter
referred to as the "City", and the Marshfield Police Officer's Wage and
Grievance Committee as sole bargaining agent for the rank of Corporal,
patrol Officers, Detectives and Police Technicians within the
Marshfield Police Department . . . hereinafter referred to as "Police
Officer."

2. The City recognizes the Marshfield Police Officer's
Wage and Grievance
Committee as the exclusive bargaining agent for the regular, full-time
Corporal, Police Officer, Detective and Police Technician ranks within
the Marshfield Police Department, excluding the Chief, Captain,
Lieutenant and Sergeant ranks within said department.

6. The bargaining unit consisting of the positions of Sergeant and
Lieutenant continued until around 1978. After that time, the Sergeants and
Lieutenants did not enter into a collective bargaining agreement with the City. The
bargaining unit disbanded and the Sergeants and Lieutenants agreed to be covered by
Chapter 25, a City ordinance related solely to law enforcement personnel. In or
about 1983, Chapter 25 of the City ordinances was abolished through agreement with
the management group, and the Sergeants and Lieutenants became subject to the same
ordinance which covers other non-represented and management employes of the City.
That situation continues to the present.

7. The Marshfield Police Department has three Lieutenants and three
Sergeants who are assigned to supervise 22 patrol officers, including one Corporal.
One Lieutenant and one Sergeant are assigned to the Detective Bureau. There are
three work shifts; each shift includes one Lieutenant, one Sergeant and seven or
eight patrol officers. The patrol officers work a 5-2, 5-3 work schedule. The work
days of the Lieutenant and Sergeant are varied to insure that a supervisor is on
duty. The Sergeant and Lieutenant are on duty on the same shift at the same time
approximately five days out of a 15 day period. A Sergeant will be on duty without
the Lieutenant and function as the shift commander approximately five days out of
a 15 day period, while having the additional five days off. The work schedule may
vary depending upon sick leave, vacation or other absences.

8. The job description for Sergeant states in pertinent part:

This is a position involving the direction of assigned personnel
and activities
of the Marshfield Police Department.

The work involves responsibility for the protection of lives and
property in the
city, through the supervision of assigned police functions. The responsibilities
include the supervision of subordinates on a patrol shift, and also recommending
departmental policies, procedures and priorities. Assisting in the development and
implementation of police programs, assisting in the training of their subordinates,
and supervision of police equipment maintenance.

. . .

Examples of Work:

- To assist in the development and
implementation of department policies,
programs, methods, procedures and goals.

- Instructs the subordinate officers as
to work assignments and procedures.

- Interprets new laws, ordinances,
rules and regulations for subordinate
officers, coordinates with the supervision, training and scheduling of
subordinates of their shifts.

- Assumes command of their shift
during the absence of their immediate
lieutenant.

- Performs related work as required.

Knowledge, Skills and Abilities:

- Thorough knowledge of modern
policy supervisory methods and procedures.

- Thorough knowledge of Federal,
State and local ordinances, rules and
regulations.

. . .

9. A shift commander, either the Lieutenant or Sergeant, is responsible
for the direction and supervision of the shift. The duties of the Sergeant while
serving as shift commander are the same as a Lieutenant. When a Sergeant works on
a shift when the Lieutenant is present, approximately 60 percent of his time is
spent with patrol-related responsibilities. The other 40 percent of his time is
spent in supervisory/administrative capacities. In addition to super-vising patrol
officers, the shift commander is also responsible for supervising dispatchers who
are on the shift. Normally two dispatchers work each shift. When a Lieutenant or
Sergeant is unavailable to serve as shift commander, a senior patrol officer may be
designated acting shift commander by the Lieutenant or Sergeant. While serving as
an acting shift commander, the patrol officer receives additional compensation and
performs most of the duties of the shift commander. The Lieutenant or Sergeant, who
normally would be on duty as shift commander, is responsible for the patrol
officers' actions as acting shift commander and remains responsible for the
performance of the shift.

10. The shift commander assigns work and makes changes in assignments when
necessary. Although the basic work schedule is reasonably fixed, changes in
scheduling must be approved by the shift commander. Shift commanders schedule
vacation, holiday time and compensatory time off. They also approve work hour
exchanges between patrol officers. Shift commanders can authorize overtime and call
in off-duty patrol officers on an overtime basis when the need arises. The shift
commander also directs auxiliary police officers when they are on duty. Currently
there are approximately 30 auxiliary police officers participating in the
Department's program. When on duty, auxiliary officers receive assignments and
direction from the shift commander. Shift commanders have the authority to
discipline patrol officers. They may issue verbal warnings and written warnings.
Shift commanders may recommend suspensions and relieve officers from duty without
consulting higher level authority. (1) When
citizen complaints are made, the shift
commander is responsible for receiving and investigating the allegations. This
would include interviewing the complainant, obtaining evidence, interviewing the
officer and taking statements from other appropriate parties. Shift commanders are
the first step in the grievance procedure and have the authority to settle
grievances. Shift commanders participate in the hiring process. After candidates
are interviewed by the Police and Fire Commission, representatives from the
Department conduct interviews. Shift commanders rate candidates based upon the
interview. The ratings of each member of the interview team are given equal weight.

11. The Police Chief conducts weekly management staff meetings. These
meetings are attended by the shift commanders. Shift commanders also attend daily
staff meetings that are held by the Chief of Police. Sergeants are paid
approximately $30,360 per year, while patrol officers at the three-year increment
are paid $24,871 per year. Lieutenants are paid approximately $33,000 per year.
Patrol officers receive overtime payment for hours worked beyond their normal
schedule. Sergeants do not receive payment for overtime hours worked unless the
Department is being reimbursed by an outside agency. Sergeants are granted "staff
time" off. Under this arrangement if the shift is staffed properly, Sergeants may
take time off from work. The "staff time" arrangement is also provided to the Chief
of Police, Deputy Chief and Lieutenants.

12. The Department presently does not evaluate employes. The Sergeants
oversee the training of new employes. The Sergeants determine whether recruits
satisfactorily pass the probationary period and continue employment with the City.
Sergeants recommend patrol officers to serve as field training officers for new
recruits. Individuals serving as field training officers receive additional
compensation. Patrol officers, who request specific training, submit the request
to the shift commander who then in turn makes a recommendation regarding the
request.

13. The Sergeants who serve as shift commanders on a regular and signi-ficant
basis exercise supervisory duties and responsibilities in sufficient
combination and degree to render them supervisors.

14. The Detective Bureau is a separate operational unit of the Depart-ment.
It consists of a Lieutenant, a Sergeant, three Detectives and one police school
liaison officer. Eleven police chaplains, nine school crossing guards, thirty
police auxiliary officers, Officer Leu and one traffic safety technician also report
through the Detective Sergeant to the Lieutenant. The Detective Bureau is also
responsible for overseeing the training function, crime preven-tion and the
neighborhood watch. The Lieutenant has overall responsibility for the functioning
of the Bureau. The Detective Sergeant is in charge when the Lieutenant is not
present, however both work approximately the same schedule. The Sergeant can make
and change work assignments, insure that cases are invest-igated in a timely manner,
and serves as a resource when Detectives have questions. The Sergeant can
investigate citizen complaints. The Sergeant can assign overtime to employes and
approves compensatory time and vacation requests. When the Lieutenant is present,
the Detective Sergeant discusses decisions with him prior to them being made. The
Detective Sergeant attends management staff meetings. From time to time he handles
cases. The Detective Sergeant also coordinates the training function. After
training requests are approved, the Sergeant coordinates the details. He monitors
the types of training that are conducted in the Department.

15. The Detective Sergeant does not exercise supervisory responsibil-ities
in sufficient combination or degree to render him a supervisor.

Upon the basis of the above Findings of Fact, the Commission makes and issues
the following

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Sergeants who serve as shift commanders on a regular and
significant basis are supervisory employes within the meaning of Sec. 111.70(1)(o)1,
Stats. and therefore are not municipal employes with the meaning of Sec.
111.70(1)(i), Stats.

2. The Detective Sergeant is not a supervisory employe within the meaning
of Sec. 111.70(1)(o)1, Stats. and therefore is a municipal employe with the meaning
of Sec. 111.70(1)(i), Stats.

Upon the basis of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, the
Commission makes and issues the following

1. The Sergeants who serve on a regular and significant basis as shift
commanders shall continue to be excluded from the bargaining unit represented by the
Association.

2. The Detective Sergeant is hereby included in the bargaining unit
represented by the Association.

Given under our hands and seal at the City of
Madison, Wisconsin this 9th day of October, 1992.

WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

By A. Henry Hempe /s/

A. Henry Hempe, Chairperson

Herman Torosian /s/
Herman Torosian, Commissioner

William K. Strycker /s/

William K. Strycker, Commissioner

CITY OF MARSHFIELD

MEMORANDUM ACCOMPANYING FINDINGS OF
FACT,

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER CLARIFYING
BARGAINING UNIT

The Association seeks to include the position of Sergeant, currently occupied
by four employes, into the bargaining unit it represents. The City opposes the
inclusion of the basis that the petition is barred by the parties' prior agreement
to exclude the Sergeant position from the bargaining unit and on the basis that the
position is supervisory.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Association

On brief, the Association argues that an analysis of the seven factors
considered by the Commission shows that the Sergeants should be placed in the
non-supervisory bargaining unit in that they are working foremen, not super-visors, and
therefore they are municipal employes. The Association asserts that because one or
two of the supervisory criteria exist and can be applied to the position in this
case, this does not mean that the position is automatically supervisory and that,
indeed, the criteria must be sufficient in both quality and degree before it can be
concluded that the disputed position is supervisory, citing City of Verona, Dec.
No.
14776-B (WERC, 2/80).

The Association argues that the Sergeants do not have the authority to
effectively recommend the hiring, promotion, transfer, discipline or discharge of
employes; that they do not have unrestricted authority to direct and assign the work
force; that the position of Sergeant is non-supervisory due to the limited number
of employes they oversee; that the Sergeants' level of pay and the fact that they
are paid for their skills rather than their supervision of employes illustrates that
the positions are non-supervisory; that Sergeants primarily supervise activities
rather than employes; that Sergeants are working supervisors who do not spend a
substantial majority of their time supervising employes; and that Sergeants exercise
little independent judgment and discretion while supervising employes.

Because the Sergeants operate as experienced lead workers, the Association
requests the Commission to determine that the position of Sergeant should be
included in the non-supervisory law enforcement bargaining unit.

On reply brief, the Association argues that even though the parties have
agreed to include or exclude certain positions from a collective bargaining unit,
the Commission will entertain a position regarding the scope of the bargaining unit
if the positions in dispute were voluntarily excluded from the unit, citing
Manitowoc Co., Dec. No. 7116-C (WERC, 11/91). The Association also
asserts that
because the circumstances which originally resulted in the voluntary exclusion of
the Sergeants from this unit have changed in a material way, the Commission should
process the petition for unit clarification.

City

The City argues that the Association's petition is barred by the parties'
prior agreement to exclude the Sergeant positions from the bargaining unit, citing
Mid-State VTAE, Dec. No. 14526-A (5/85), and West Allis - West
Milwaukee School
District, Dec. No. 16405-C (1/89), among others. Specifically, the City asserts
that the Association and the City agreed to language excluding Sergeants from the
bargaining unit, and that the record does not show any intervening event which has
materially affected the status of the Sergeants. Therefore, the City argues, to
permit the Association to proceed in this unit clarification proceeding, contrary
to the parties' mutual agreement to exclude the Sergeants from the bargaining unit,
would be inappropriate.

In addition, the City contends that the position of Sergeant is clearly
supervisory and, therefore, must be excluded from the collective bargaining unit;
that relevant case law clearly establishes that the duties and respons-ibilities of
the Sergeants qualify them as supervisors entitling them to the exemption in the
Municipal Employment Relations Act, citing numerous cases; and that the evidence
unequivocally establishes that the position of Sergeant is supervisory.
Specifically, the City argues that the Sergeants possess the effective authority to
recommend hiring, transfer, or discipline of employes and to direct and assign the
work force; that the Sergeants supervise a substantial number of employes, none of
whom exercise the same authority over other employes; that they supervise employes
rather than activities; that the Sergeants expend a substantial majority of their
time supervising employes; and that they exercise substantial independent judgment
and discretion in regard to the supervision of employes.

Therefore, the City requests the Commission to dismiss the petition or, in the
alternative, to hold that the Sergeant position is supervisory and continue to
exclude it from the bargaining unit.

DISCUSSION

The record is clear that the Union and the City have agreed to exclude the
position of Sergeant from the collective bargaining unit.

The Commission has held that where the parties have agreed to include or
exclude certain positions from a collective bargaining unit, it will honor that
agreement and will not allow a party to the agreement to pursue alteration of the
bargaining unit's scope through a unit clarification petition unless:

1. The position(s) in dispute did not exist at the time of the
agreement;
or

2. The position(s) in dispute were voluntarily included or
excluded from
the unit because the parties agreed that the position(s) were or were
not supervisory, confidential, managerial or executive (the so-called
"statutory exemptions"); or

3. The position(s) in dispute have been impacted by
changed circumstances
which materially affect their unit status; or

If we determined it was appropriate to honor the agreement to exclude
Sergeants and if some or all of the Sergeants are not supervisory employes, those
Sergeants would be entitled to seek union representation in a unit separate from
that which the parties' agreement had excluded them from. Thus, under such a
scenario, there would be the potential for two sworn law enforcement units. Because
two such units would not be appropriate given the statutory fragmentation language
of Sec. 111.70(4)(d)2.a., Stats., (4) the existing
unit would be repugnant to the Act
because it would not contain all regular sworn municipal employes of the City.
Thus, the fourth exception set forth above is potentially present and precludes us
from continuing to exclude Sergeants based on the parties' agreement. Therefore,
we proceed to determine whether the Sergeants' exclusion is warranted by supervisory
status.

A supervisor is defined as:

. . . any individual who has authority, in the interest of the
municipal
employer to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, promote, discharge, assign,
reward or discipline other employes, or to adjust their grievances or effectively
to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such
authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of
independent judgment. Section 111.70(1)(o)1, Stats.

We have considered the following factors in applying the statutory definition
in order to determine if a position is supervisory:

1. The authority to effectively recommend the hiring,
promotion, transfer,
discipline or discharge of employes;

2. The authority to direct and assign the work force;

3. The number of employes supervised, and the number of
other persons
exercising greater, similar or lesser authority over the same employes;

4. The level of pay, including an evaluation of whether the
supervisor is
paid for his skill or for his supervision of employes;

5. Whether the supervisor is primarily super-vising an
activity or is
primarily supervising employes.

6. Whether the supervisor is a working super-visor or
whether he spends
a substantial majority of his time supervising employes; and

7. The amount of independent judgment exercised in the
supervision of
employes. (5)

Not all of the above factors need to be present for a position to be found
supervisory. Rather, in each case the inquiry is whether the factors are present
in sufficient combination and degree to warrant the conclusion that the employe
occupying the position is supervisory. (6)

We have previously commented that the quasi-military organization of police
and fire departments presents a unique problem in making determinations about
alleged supervisory status. (7)

Sergeants/Shift Commander

We are satisfied that the Sergeants service as shift commanders on a regular
and significant basis warrants their continued exclusion from the unit as
supervisors. During a normal 15-day period, a Sergeant has five off days, serves
as a shift commander for five days, and works with a Lieutenant on the same shift
for five days. When working with the Lieutenant, approximately 40 percent of the
Sergeant's time is spent performing supervisory functions. As shift commander, the
Sergeant is responsible for the direction and super-vision of a shift. They assign
work to employes as well as change assignments when the need arises. Although basic
schedules are reasonably fixed, Sergeants approve alterations to these schedules.
This includes approving vacation, holiday time off, compensatory time, hour changes
between patrol officers, and other requests. Sergeants also oversee the work of
dispatchers and auxiliary officers. While the duties of the dispatchers are
reasonably fixed, auxiliary officers receive assignments and direction from the
Sergeants. Shift commanders/Sergeants can assign overtime, call in off-duty patrol
officers when the need arises. Sergeants may also request assistance from other
police departments in emergency situations.

Sergeants as shift commanders can issue verbal warnings and written
discipline. They can relieve officers from duty and effectively recommend
suspensions. Sergeants handle citizen complaints about patrol officers. This
involves interviewing the officer and the complainant, obtaining evidence and taking
other necessary action to complete an investigation.

The Department does not have an employe evaluation system. Although the Chief
plans to develop one in which the Sergeants will evaluate patrol officers under
their supervision, at this point it is speculative. Sergeants do, how-ever,
evaluate the performance of probationary employes and make decisions about whether
or not the employment of the new employe should be continued. Sergeants also select
officers who are to serve as field training officers for new recruits. Field
training officers receive increased compensation while serving in this role.

Requests for training are submitted by patrol officers to the shift commander.
The shift commander reviews the request and makes a recommendation as to whether the
request should be granted.

Sergeants are involved in the hiring process. After candidates are inter-viewed by the
Police and Fire Commission, Sergeants participate as part of the
departmental interviewing panel. The rating provided by the Sergeant is given equal
weight along with all other interviewers, including the Chief of Police. This
"equal status" while serving as an interviewer is significant.

Sergeants, as shift commanders, serve as the first step in the grievance
procedure. They receive grievances and have the authority to settle grievances.

Sergeants receive approximately $30,360 per year; patrol officers at the third
year increment receive $24,871 per year. The Sergeants' salary is obviously closer
to the Lieutenants' salary which is approximately $33,000 annually. We conclude
that the salary differential between patrol officers and Sergeants exists primarily
because of the Sergeants' supervisory responsibil-ities.

Our conclusion as to supervisory status is similar to those reached in other
cases. For example, the Sergeants we have previously found to be supervisors had
the authority to suspend employes with pay and to participate in hiring decisions,
(8) to serve as the first step in the contractual
grievance process, to participate
in hiring decisions, to effectively recommend written reprimands, to designate shift
commanders, (9) to participate in hiring
decisions, to make or effectively recommend
oral and/or written discipline, and to do work substantially distinct from patrol
officers, (10) to interview candidates when
scoring is given the same weight as other
panel members including the Chief, to issue oral and written reprimands, to approve
shift trades between officers, authorize overtime, call in extra officers, grant
time off, change assignments or reassign duties, and effectively recommend
suspensions. (11)

In summary, while the Sergeant/shift commander positions do not exhibit all
of the factors we consider in determining supervisory status, they exhibit a
sufficient combination of these factors for us to find them to be supervisory.

Detective Sergeant

The Detective Sergeant can assign cases, provide assistance to detectives when
needed, call employes in on an overtime basis, approve compensatory time off and
schedule vacation. While these are responsibilities associated with a supervisory
finding, the record does not support that the Detective Sergeant possesses the other
components crucial to a supervisory conclusion. While the incumbent in the
Detective Sergeant position (Beres) clearly had the authority to discipline employes
when he served as a shift commander, the record does not support that he possesses
that authority as Detective Sergeant. Further, the fact that the Lieutenant to
which he reports works the same shift and same hours leads us to conclude that he
is operating much less independently than a shift commander. In fact, Sergeant
Beres testified that since the Lieutenant was on duty when he was, he would seek his
guidance when decisions had to be made.

Further, a major component of the Detective Sergeant's position is to oversee
training activities. He is involved in responding to and identifying training
needs, coordinating training activities and maintaining training records.

Given all of the foregoing, we conclude that the Detective Sergeant is
primarily involved in supervising activities rather than employes and does not
possess or exercise supervisory responsibilities in sufficient combination or degree
to render him a supervisor.

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 9th day of October, 1992.

WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

By A. Henry Hempe /s/

A. Henry Hempe, Chairperson

Herman Torosian /s/
Herman Torosian, Commissioner

William K. Strycker /s/

William K. Strycker, Commissioner

1. The parties stipulated that officers up to and
including the Chief of Police
do not have the authority to suspend without pay or terminate a police
officer. These decisions are made by the Police and Fire Commission.

2. Pursuant to Sec. 227.48(2), Stats., the
Commission hereby notifies the
parties that a petition for rehearing may be filed with the Commission by
following the procedures set forth in Sec. 227.49 and that a petition for
judicial review naming the Commission as Respondent, may be filed by
following the procedures set forth in Sec. 227.53, Stats.

227.49 Petitions for rehearing in contested cases. (1) A petition for
rehearing shall not be prerequisite for appeal or review. Any person
aggrieved by a final order may, within 20 days after service of the order,
file a written petition for rehearing which shall specify in detail the
grounds for the relief sought and supporting authorities. An agency may
order a rehearing on its own motion within 20 days after service of a final
order. This subsection does not apply to s. 17.025(3)(e). No agency is
required to conduct more than one rehearing based on a petition for rehearing
filed under this subsection in any contested case.

227.53 Parties and proceedings for review. (1) Except as otherwise
specifically provided by law, any person aggrieved by a decision specified in
s. 227.52 shall be entitled to judicial review thereof as provided in this
chapter.

(a) Proceedings for review shall be instituted by serving a petition
therefore personally or by certified mail upon the agency or one of its
officials, and filing the petition in the office of the clerk of the circuit
court for the county where the judicial review proceedings are to be held.
Unless a rehearing is requested under s. 227.49, petitions for review under
this paragraph shall be served and filed within 30 days after the service of
the decision of the agency upon all parties under s. 227.48. If a rehearing
is requested under s. 227.49, any party desiring judicial review shall serve
and file a petition for review within 30 days after service of the order
finally disposing of the application for rehearing, or within 30 days after
the final disposition by operation of law of any such application for
rehearing. The 30-day period for serving and filing a petition under this
paragraph commences on the day after personal service or mailing of the
decision by the agency. If the petitioner is a resident, the proceedings
shall be held in the circuit court for the county where the petitioner
resides, except that if the petitioner is an agency, the proceedings shall be
in the circuit court for the county where the respondent resides and except
as provided in ss. 77.59(6)(b), 182.70(6) and 182.71(5)(g). The proceedings
shall be in the circuit court for Dane county if the petitioner is a
nonresident. If all parties stipulate and the court to which the parties
desire to transfer the proceedings agrees, the proceedings may be held in the
county designated by the parties. If 2 or more petitions for review of the
same decision are filed in different counties, the circuit judge for the
county in which a petition for review of the decision was first filed shall
determine the venue for judicial review of the decision, and shall order
transfer or consolidation where appropriate.

(b) The petition shall state the nature of the petitioner's interest,
the facts showing that petitioner is a person aggrieved by the decision, and
the grounds specified in s. 227.57 upon which petitioner contends that the
decision should be reversed or modified.

. . .

(c) Copies of the petition shall be served, personally or by certified
mail, or, when service is timely admitted in writing, by first class mail,
not later than 30 days after the institution of the proceeding, upon all
parties who appeared before the agency in the proceeding in which the order
sought to be reviewed was made.

Note: For purposes of the above-noted statutory time-limits, the date of Commission
service of this decision is the date it is placed in the mail (in this case the date
appearing immediately above the signatures); the date of filing of a rehearing
petition is the date of actual receipt by the Commission; and the service date of
a judicial review petition is the date of actual receipt by the Court and placement
in the mail to the Commission.